Posts by The Pack Knight

I don’t get all the consternation about this rule. I was ALWAYS taught to keep my head up learning to play football in Ohio. In fact, if I remember correctly, it was a personal foul to hit with the crown of the helmet back when I was playing high school ball, at least in open field.

Of course, I’ve noticed that they don’t seem to teach proper fundamentals anymore, so maybe that’s the problem. Watching what seems to pass for open field tackling or ball carrying anymore, I guess I can see why a lot of NFL players are going to have difficulty adjusting.

If you have to lower your head to make a tackle or cover the ball, you’re doing it wrong.

Right. I don’t know what ‘s wrong with using scan cards like we had in NC. It’s a simple to use, fill-in-the-dot form which is counted automatically and immediately at the poll, but they can always be independently recounted by hand if necessary.

Regardless of what security measures they use in “direct record” electronic systems, you’ll never have that hard evidence to verify. All you’ll ever have is what the computer tells you.

Absolutely. That’s at least one reason behind all these polls that assume an even larger turnout of minorities as a percentage of voters than 2008. If, or rather when, those polls prove wrong and Romney wins, it will be because of “voter suppression”.

Not through open warfare, but I can certainly see them providing some financial and other support in order to draw out any Turko-Syrian hostilities in order to make it more costly, both materially and politically, for Turkey. A weakened and less assertive Turkey is definitely in Russia’s core interests.

I was at a dinner once where Scalia told us the same thing. The question was, “What was the most persuasive oral argument you’ve ever heard?”. Scalia’s answer, “I’ve never heard a persuasive oral argument.”

Later on, I was a law clerk for an appellate judge. I can certainly say that I’ve never seen a judge change his mind after oral arguments. More than once, I had already drafted the judge’s opinion.

I absolutely agree. For one thing, while he may be more passionately hated by voters who are going to vote for Obama no matter what, Santorum is far less unpopular among independents and swing voters than Gingrich is.

Furthermore, while I personally am not a big fan of his proposal to give manufacturers and those with large numbers of children preferential tax treatment, there's no denying that his populist, pro-manufacturing, socially conservative message will be appealing to Reagan Democrats and can energize the socially conservative vote in a number of key states. It is a campaign built to win in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the rest of the industrial Midwest, which is the key region in today's Presidential elections.

One need only look back to 2004 to see how important this segment of the vote is in the midwest. The state that decided the 2004 election was quintessentially "purple" Ohio, and the turnout in Appalachian Ohio due in large part to the gay marriage proposition sealed the deal.

Perhaps even more important is Hamilton County (Cincinnati), which Bush won by over 20,000 votes in 2004, but Obama won by over 20,000 votes in 2008. This is crucial, because Cincinnati had only voted Democrat in one election - 1964 - since World War 2 and was the only major city not to vote for FDR. Cincinnati, like the rest of southern Ohio and like some important northern counties like Sandusky that also swung to Obama in 2008, is socially conservative and tends to be more populist economically. In other words, it is ripe ground for Santorum in a way it is not for Romney or Gingrich.

It is absolutely essential for any Republican to reverse the 2008 result in Hamilton County in order to win Ohio, and it is absolutely essential for any Republican to win Ohio and at the very least one other midwestern state or Pennsylvania in order to win the election. My own problems with Santorum aside, he is probably the best candidate to do it.

Frankly, I think Santorum would have a significantly better chance of beating Obama than Gingrich. Santorum appeals to Reagan Democrats in a way Gingrich doesn’t, and he’s less unpopular among the mushy middle than Gringrich is.

It’s called capias, which is a name for a number of writs that command a sheriff or other officer to arrest a person and bring them before the court. They cannot be executed outside the jurisdiction on the issuing court.

There are state statutes that require courts to issue capias, warrants, or other writs on out-of-state actions in certain circumstances, such as child support situations. These statutes are in derogation of the common law rule that no capias would issue on a foreign cause of action.

I’m not sure what Delaware was doing, but I rather doubt a sheriff in Maryland would feel compelled to obey the writs of a Delaware court. There must be some compact or other arrangement where the local court issued capias on request of the Delaware authorities.

Strange. Last I checked, state courts couldn’t issue subpoenas to persons who aren’t in that state. They don’t have jurisdiction. All they can do is request that the witness’s state’s courts issue one. And even then, it is generally only available for depositions, not to compel appearance in court.

Building on President Johnson's Great Society endeavor, which relied on the newly-enacted Civil Rights Act and federal taxing and spending authority to address the lingering effects of slavery on the nation's inner cities, the Court cast aside a centuries-old common law tenet and empowered D.C. tenants to simply stop paying rent if their landlords were derelict in correcting serious housing code violations in their units.

This would be the implied warranty of habitability. It has been adopted in more than 40 states. Only a few states (about a dozen) allow the tenant the remedy of remaining in possession and withholding rent. Usually the most you can do is either terminate the lease, sue for damages, or have the condition repaired yourself and deduct the reasonable cost from the rent.

Seriously. That's easily the cheapest I've ever seen, and the first I really know of that doesn't require a class. IN a lot of states it's $60 to $80 or much more for the permit/background check, plus another $60+ for the required class.

Here in supposedly gun-friendly Texas, it's $140 just for the licensing fee, plus another $100 for the class! It costs more than twice as much to get a CCW permit here than it did back in North Carolina.

You won’t get any arguments from me about fraud mills like Binder & Binder. They managed to get through a rule years ago where they could use “qualified” non-attorney representatives to represent people in disability procedings before the administrative law judge. In fact, the vast majority of Binder & Binder’s work is done by large numbers of low-paid non-attorneys “supervised” by a couple lawyers. Needless to say, it’s a mess.

Okay, I broke down and did read the whole article, where I came across this gem:

The NEF argues we need to achieve truly happy lives, we need to challenge social norms and reset the industrial clock ticking in our heads. It sees the 21-hour week as integral to this for two reasons: it will redistribute paid work, offering the hope of a more equal society (right now too many are overworked, or underemployed).

On what does he base the assumption that the "underemployed" is even capable of doing the work of the "overworked"? Does he really think that an "underemployed" literature major can take work off the hands of an "overworked" neurosurgeon? Who is "commodifying" now?

The very idea that all work is the same and that you can essentially plug any work, with a little training, into any job is a relic of the very Industrial Age the author claims to be moving past. It was a key concept of that other relic of the Industrial Age, communism. We saw it in the Soviet Union, where the labor of doctors was valued the same as the labor of unskilled factory workers - with predictable results. The fact that this author seems to harbor the same assumption says a lot.

One of the great ironies of this idiotic obsession these Montreal hockey fans have about the French language is that the English language is far more useful in the Montreal Canadiens' locker room than French is. The team has very few players from Quebec these days (only 2 of the 25 players listed on their website today).

I remember the kerfuffle back in the 90s when Kirk Muller was traded away and Mike Keane was named the new captain. Keane pointed out exactly what you said, that it didn't matter whether the captain spoke French since all the players spoke English. Needless to say, he was pilloried by the Quebecois media.

Too bad for Montreal they didn't fire Jacques Martin a few weeks earlier, or they could have hired Muller before Carolina did.

Thats what you get when you try to favor one segment of business over the other.

Better to simply CUT CORPORATE TAXES to one LOW, COMEPTITIVE LEVEL and get out of the way.

Hear hear. Also, while I would certainly like to see some more manufacturing attracted back to our shores, that doesn't mean ANY manufacturing is preferable to any non-manufacturing business.

After all, what's better for our economic viability and national security, a software company or a t-shirt factory? I used to live in North Carolina which has for decades been losing the latter but gaining the former. Some might disagree, but I think it has been for the best in that state. Certainly, I feel safer having our military have to buy Chinese-made undershirts than having them buy Chinese-made targeting software.

Thats what you get when you try to favor one segment of business over the other.

Better to simply CUT CORPORATE TAXES to one LOW, COMEPTITIVE LEVEL and get out of the way.

Hear hear. Also, while I would certainly like to see some more manufacturing attracted back to our shores, that doesn't mean ANY manufacturing is preferable to any non-manufacturing business.

After all, what's better for our economic viability and national security, a software company or a t-shirt factory? I used to live in North Carolina which has for decades been losing the latter but gaining the former. Some might disagree, but I think it has been for the best in that state. Certainly, I feel safer having our military have to buy Chinese-made undershirts than having them buy Chinese-made targeting software.

Your hard on for lawyers aside, I think I see what you are saying and agree with it. That’s why I think the corporate income tax ought to be eliminated - corporations should be “pass through” just like partnerships and most LLCs. There is no reason for the double taxation of income just because it is earned in the corporate form, other than rank populism.

Well, if you know of a common sense way to resolve this issue without (a) creating a rule that would be easily gamed, (b) coming up with a completely arbitrary rule that has nothing to do with what’s good for the country, or (c) leaving it up to the unpredictable whim of IRS bureaucrats or tax judges, I’d be interested to hear it.

The truth is that there is no way to implement Santorum’s proposal that wouldn’t provide a lot of work for lawyers. Even though I am a lawyer, as a citizen, I don’t want that kind of system.

Good article. The other problem with Santorum's proposal is this: How do you determine what is manufacturing?

Think that's a simple question? Then answer this one:

Which of the following, if any, is a "manufacturing" business?

An integrated auto manufacturer.

An auto manufacturer that assembles cars from parts bought from China.

An auto dealer who buys cars without headlights, buys the headlights separately, installs them on site, and sells the cars.

An engineering consulting firm that designs cars.

A fast food restaurant.

A fast food restaurant's supplier.

A caterer.

A meatpacker.

A corn farmer.

A beef cattleman.

A dairy farmer.

A dog breeder.

A guy who makes cabinets by hand.

A toilet paper factory.

A software company.

A CD printing company.

A software company that owns its own CD presses and sells its software on CD-ROMs.

A movie studio.

A coal mine.

An oil driller.

An oilfield services company.

An oil refiner.

A homebuilder.

A prefabricated home manufacturer.

A mobile home manufacturer.

Then if you can answer that, then answer this: How is this not arbitrarily picking winners and losers in the economy and, if it is, when did it become okay for conservatives to do that? Also, why are the businesses for which you said "Yes" better for America than the businesses for which you said "No"? Why should the latter businesses have to pick up the slack for the former?

I'd like to see Santorum answer these questions. I'd like it even more if he rethought this nonsense and started acting like a conservative on this issue, because I generally like the guy and would love to support him.

It further astounded me that Perry couldnt think of three agencies to cut to nothing when theres a list a dozen long. If you cant remember one on stage, then name another, fer cryin out loud. Just start swinging an axe in DC, and fast.

It shocked me that the guy who wrote Fed Up! couldn't knock that one out of the park. It sure made me question how serious he was about a limited federal government.

Also, you make a good point with Greece, Italy, and Spain. With what's going on in the world right now, the time should be ripe for bold conservative reforms in government, but we couldn't come up with a single candidate who can actually articulate those reforms - except Gingrich, who nonetheless has an irritating tendency to want to replace liberal government meddling with conservative government meddling.

Agreed. I’m talking about Huntsman out not so much as an endorsement (though I really would prefer him to Romney) as a way of pointing out the maddening situation we’re in, where the one self-professed “moderate” in the race has one of the most conservative tax plans. It’s maddening because it isn’t even that conservative compared to what was proposed only a few years ago.

I've been thinking about this, too, so I came up with a little multiple choice question over my lunch break the other day that I think anyone considering Santorum's tax proposal needs to consider.

Which of the following, if any, is a "manufacturing" business?

An integrated auto manufacturer.

An auto manufacturer that assembles cars from parts bought from China.

An auto dealer who buys cars without headlights, buys the headlights separately, installs them on site, and sells the cars.

An engineering consulting firm that designs cars.

A fast food restaurant.

A fast food restaurant's supplier.

A caterer.

A meatpacker.

A corn farmer.

A beef cattleman.

A dairy farmer.

A dog breeder.

A guy who makes cabinets by hand.

A toilet paper factory.

A software company.

A CD printing company.

A software company that owns its own CD presses and sells its software on CD-ROMs.

A movie studio.

A coal mine.

An oil driller.

An oilfield services company.

An oil refiner.

A homebuilder.

A prefabricated home manufacturer.

A mobile home manufacturer.

As you can see, some of them are easy, some not so easy. All of it, however, ultimately involves picking winners and losers in the economy in a rather arbitrary manner, something we conservatives were supposed to be against last I checked.

I cheered Santorum on in Iowa, but the tax plan makes it very hard to give him more than lukewarm support going forward.

I have to disagree with you on a couple of those. I think Huntsman has one of the better plans, in that he actually advocates scrapping all of the credits and exemptions and going with a flatter, broader tax base. It is still progressive in that it has three brackets, but stripping away all of the deductions and credits - which increase compliance and return preparation costs and allow politicians pick winners and losers - is actually more important to me than having one tax bracket.

I think Santorum’s tax plan is abysmal for a conservative. It looks more like a Blue Dog Democrat’s proposal than a Republican’s - and as you might know, I’m not one who throws around “RINO” accusations very often. The elmination of corporate income taxes for anyone engaged in “manufacturing” would be a disaster - can you imagine the type of shenanigans that will go on, both in Congress and among tax-paying companies, to play with that exemption? It’s a shame, too, because I like a lot of Rick’s policies and I like him a lot personally.

For what it’s worth, I think Santorum truly believes this is what’s best for the country. Coming from anyone else, I’d think it was shameless populist pandering and an attempt to get crossover votes from Reagan Democrats. Santorum is one of the most honest guys in politics, however.

This chart is missing some important details, particulary with regards to simplification of the tax code. There are also some conflicts between this chart and the one put forth by the Tax Foundation.

I noticed it particularly with Huntsman - never a candidate I've supported, but I have been interested in his tax plan of late. With the possible exception of Perry's and Gingrich's respective optional flat taxes, Huntsman is the only candidate I am aware of who is in favor of eliminating all deductions and credits in favor of lower rates, and that isn't reflected on the chart. Also, I've seen conflicting reports on Huntsman's stance on the death tax - the Tax Foundation's chart says he is in favor of eliminating the estate tax. ATR cites Huntsman's campaign site as the source for this chart, but that site doesn't address the estate tax issue.

Certainly every candidate is better than Obama on this issue, but I would have liked to see at least one candidate explicitly come out in favor of scrapping the entire tax code and starting over, something which is long overdue.

Ain’t that the truth. They may be two of the worst possible states for picking a Republican nominee. Is it any wonder why most of the campaign consists of “culture war” red meat and pandering to Iowa farm subsidies?

Frankly, I think I’d prefer Huntsman to Romney. Huntsman arguably has the best tax plan of any candidate, and unlike Gingrich, he didn’t wait until he was getting killed in the Iowa polls to announce it.

Of all the disappointments I’ve had in this year’s field, it’s been on taxes. It was just four years ago, in a FAR more hostile environment for conservatives, that virtually EVERY Republican candidate, Romney included, was proposing very significant tax reform or at least tax cuts. Now they’ve all retreated - no candidate other than the erstwhile Cain came out in favor of a non-optional flat tax, only a few are in favor of eliminating the capital gains and dividend taxes, and only Huntsman would really simplify the tax code in any meaningful way.

I was particularly disappointed in Bachmann on this issue. She must be the first tax attorney I’ve ever heard from who did NOT have a strong opinion on simplifying the tax code and ending double taxation, and I know quite a few tax attorneys.

This is being fed to us predictably this cycle as well. If a Republican ran like a Republican, we could sweep. The nation is crying for leadership and goodness, confidence and direction, from our nominee.

I agree with this, and with most everything else in your post, save for one problem: While there are a number of people out there who could run like a Republican, show leadership, goodness, confidence, and direction and beat Obama on a conservative message, none of them decided to run for President this year. Instead, we have a number of mediocre candidates, each of whom has serious problems.

We shouldn't have to trade principle for a chance to beat Obama, and we deserve better than the choice we've been given. However, in the words of William Munny, deserve's got nothing to do with it.

I would ultimately love to make this race a stark choice between a continuation of Obama's failed policies and a strong conservative alternative. I am just not convinced that any of the candidates can accomplish that. I am skeptical of Perry's ability to articulate conservative policies, I suspect that the focus with Santorum would be on his social positions, and I worry that everyone would be too distracted by Gingrich's baggage, unlikability, and inconsistent positions to listen to what he has to say. In other words, with any of those three, we run the risk that the race will become a referendum on our nominee rather than on Obama.

With Romney, while I certainly don't think he's the President we need, he's better than the one we have, and I think he's inoffensive to enough voters that the focus will be on Obama's failings - specifically because he is bland, moderate, and uninteresting. That may be a weak choice, but I am not ruling out the possibility that he is the worst choice except for all the others.

All that said, I don't currently plan on voting for Romney. If I were voting today, I'd vote for Gingrich. Despite my many misgivings, I have a ton of respect for the only candidate who can do more than spout empty platitudes and bar napkin policy positions.

That’s a good sign. I don’t know whether it necessarily means Gingrich is surging, but I think it does show that these Iowa polls are highly volatile for a lot of reasons and that you can’t count anyone out yet.

There’s an interesting article on the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal on how evangelicals in Iowa have as yet been unable to unite behind a single candidate as they did with Huckabee in 2008. That situation of course benefits Romney.

I also think, however, that the situation is very fluid, and a lot could happen by Tuesday. Maybe even Santorum could pull out a win here. I’ve always thought he was the most natural fit for the evangelical bloc. Also, and maybe this is just my ignorance as to what drives the evangelical vote in Iowa, but I’m skeptical that Santorum’s Catholicism is really that big an problem for him there.

Oh well. One thing is for certain - at least one of the recent polls is going to be proven dead wrong next Tuesday.

I would LOVE to nominate a good conservative candidate who could beat Obama and serve as a conservative President for at least four years.

Unfortunately, it is highly questionable at best whether such a candidate is in this race. I would FAR prefer Gingrich, Santorum, or Perry to Romney as President. The problem is that a lot of swing voters would seem to prefer four more years of Obama to Gingrich, Santorum, or Perry.

As for the rest, while I'm not a fan of Romney, I disagree that he is the same as Arnold. I think both our country and our party would be far better off with Romney as President than with four more years of Obama. While the likelihood of a Republican Congress for at least the first two years will somewhat mitigate the damage Obama could do in a second term, I don't think it will be enough for stop Obama from fundamentally moving this country to the left. After all, while we had a conservative backlash against the liberalism of the 60s and 70s, we are still living with and suffering from almost all of the major policies of the Great Society.

I'm not backing Romney because I haven't given up yet on the possibility that a more conservative candidate could beat Obama. However, if I became certain that Romney was the only candidate with a chance of beating Obama, then Romney would have my vote in the primary.

Unless I bungled the point, Romney is able to better score over Obama because the supporters of the non-Romneys remain unable to coalesce around ONE non-Romney candidate.

I'm not sure why the diffusion of support for conservative primary candidates would matter for any Republican's numbers against Obama. If someone supports Santorum over Gingrich, for example, does that mean that person is less likely to vote for Gingrich over Obama in November?

I'd be interested to see what percentage of Republicans would stay home, vote third party, or even vote for Obama rather than vote for each potential Republican nominee. I suspect the numbers are rather small.

I think Romney's performance against Obama is rather easily explained. Independents and moderates have soured on Obama, but that doesn't mean they're suddenly in love with conservative Republicans. Most of them are eager to vote against Obama so long as that doesn't mean voting for someone they like even less.

Candidates like Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, and Perry turn off significant portions of the moderate swing vote for various reasons. For whatever reason, Romney turns off far fewer of them.

I think it's inescapable right now that nominating someone other than Romney increases the chances that Obama will be re-elected. It may be a gamble that could pay off with a more conservative President, but it is still clearly a gamble.

I think we each need to make a sober assessment of whether its a gamble that is worth taking. I know I am giving the issue a lot of thought and, while I am still planning to vote for someone other than Romney, it isn't set in stone. Of course, the decision will likely have been made for me by the time I get to vote in April, or at least my options will be greatly reduced.

None of this is to say a good conservative candidate couldn't trounce Obama. Unfortunately, we don't really have one.